Universal health insurance is bad because healthy people should not have to pay money to help sick people. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
A general perception is emerging that social health insurance is not reasonable and people with excellent health should not pay for sick counterparts. I completely disagree with this statement and shall discuss in the following paragraphs.
To start with, a lobby hypothesizes that one should not bear the brunt of extending treatment for the ailing since the responsibility lies on the shoulders of governments. They have the means and resources to dispense available medical interventions for the betterment of those afflicted by health issues. Moreover, this system can make many, especially youngsters, bereft from saving for their autumn years, or emergencies; consequently, making their future bleak. For example, in Japan, a recent survey revealed that many are unable to accumulate enough for their retirement since most of the income is being directed towards universal insurance.
Having said that, a group strongly asserts that ‘as you sow so shall you reap’. If one starts funding for those suffering from ill-health today, in the future someone will do the same for them too. This kindness will precipitate an ever-lasting loop of support for each other. Similarly, the world is facing unprecedented incidence of disease, and their treatments are exorbitantly priced, mainly for the destitute populace. This arrangement will aid many in alleviating the monetary burden and afford treatments. To corroborate, many in France pay a substantial amount for the healthcare on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, helping a number of destitute ill to avail suitable medical treatments.
To conclude, disputes aside, everyone should pay for unified national health insurance since it will enable creation of a socially assuring network and allow many to afford treatments - rather than abandoning them - and such gestures will surely have reciprocal results for the payers.
